If you're asking me, let's hope the done deal for Dany Heatley that came undone last night stays that way. The Edmonton Oilers will be better off without him.

The best thing the Oilers and GM Steve Tambellini can do today with the free agency season officially underway -- unless that deadline has been reported incorrectly without clarification by the NHL as well -- is yank their offer to the Ottawa Senators off the table and move on.

Let's review . . .

-- Heatley and his agents demand a trade out of Ottawa because Dany Boy is unhappy with the way he's been handled by new coach Cory Clouston. Instead of going to GM Bryan Murray on the down-low, Heatley and his agents go public, forcing Murray's hand.

-- In the days since, Heatley, through his agents, make it known that the Oilers would be one of the teams he'd waive his no-trade clause to go to and it's widely reported by MSM outlets, including TSN, that's the case. Oiler fans work themselves into a lather about landing Heatley.

-- Murray fields offers leading up to the NHL Entry Draft. In the wake of the draft, the Oilers step to the front of the line Tuesday with an offer that includes Dustin Penner, Andrew Cogliano and Ladislav Smid. Dump PDP as part of a Heatley deal? Oilers fans are in a frenzy.

-- Late Tuesday afternoon, with a midnight deadline for a $4-million bonus payment to Heatley looming (or so everybody thought), several MSM media outlets, including Sportsnet, TEAM 1260 and The Score, report that the Oilers and Senators have completed the Heatley swap for Penner, Cogliano and Smid. Done deal. Oilers fans rejoice.

-- Other media outlets, notably TSN and Bob McKenzie, say, "Not so fast." Heatley has yet to approve the deal by waiving his no-trade clause. The done deal starts to unravel. Bruce Garrioch of the Ottawa Sun reports that Heatley has killed the deal. Heatley's agents later clarify Heatley has not killed the deal. He hasn't said no but he hasn't said yes. He wants to "sleep on it." Shunned again, Oiler fans are outraged.

Is that about right?

THE MORNING AFTER

So, as Oilers fans awoke this morning with teeth and fists clenched and cursing Heatley and everybody who reported the done deal, delivering a kick in the collective nuts the way Chris Pronger, Michael Nylander and countless others have done, we're led to believe there's still a chance Heatley might yet give Edmonton his blessing.

Sure, there's still a chance -- if Heatley and his camp can't orchestrate a deal with the New York Rangers before the REAL deadline for the bonus payment ticks by at 11:59 tonight.

Tell me this: how is it that nobody with the Senators or the Oilers had the actual deadline locked down? How is it that the NHL never clarified when the deadline fell? How did everybody get it wrong? Kind of an important detail, don't you think?

That said, and knowing what we think we know today, does the possibility of landing a 40-50 goal player of Heatley's stature trump the red flags that surround him?

While I'm not into the "Dany Heatley's mom wears army boots and dresses him funny" venom that was spewed in Ottawa when he went public with his trade request, for me the answer is no. Not a chance.

The way I see it, the boondoggle that infolded late Tuesday gives the Oilers a chance to reconsider their position, withdraw their offer and run the hell the other way as fast as they can. They should take it.

Ask yourself this: Is Heatley a cornerstone player Tambellini can build his team around for years to come? At $7.5 million per season in a salary cap world, he'd damn sure better be. Are you thinking, "maybe" or are you thinking "no?" Anybody thinking "yes" please raise your hands.

The best thing for the Oilers is that this deal stays undone. Heatley isn't the answer.

RANDOM THOUGHTS

-- It's been suggested that Murray knew the deadline actually fell at 11:59 tonight, but didn't disclose it. The reasoning behind that train of thought is that Murray was using the Oilers to leverage better offers, most notably from the Rangers.

It's also been offered Murray screwed with Tambellini and the Oilers as payback for the Mike Comrie deal that came undone during his days as Anaheim GM -- when Kevin Lowe queered a trade involving Cory Perry with a late stipulation Comrie cough up $2.5 million to complete the swap. In other words, karma is biting the Oilers on the backside.

I'd bet on the former. That, or Murray is grossly incompetent.

-- There's plenty of consternation among Oilers fans that Tambellini now has a problem in the dressing room because Penner, Cogliano and Smid are going to feel unwanted because their names came out in the deal.

Too bad. Get over it. It's part of the gig and part of a business that makes players like Penner, Cogliano and Smid millionaires. The possibility of being traded is part of the package.

Did Penner feel bad because the Ducks didn't match Edmonton's offer sheet? No. He took the money. Still with the Ducks, it seems to me Perry has recovered nicely from being offered up in the Comrie deal that came undone. No?

-- When reporters push to break stories and announce that a deal is done and it goes sideways, they have to wear it. That, like trades for players, is part of the game.

In that regard, it's obvious Jason Gregor of the TEAM 1260, didn't have all of the bases covered in reporting the deal as done.

Fine. Gregor went with his best information and trusted a source and the story went bust. Wrong is wrong. No excuses, but it happens. Own it, as Gregor has, and move on.

That said, there's no excuse for some of the over-the-top crap written by fans and directed at Gregor over what unfolded Tuesday. None.

-- Listen to Robin Brownlee every Thursday from 4 to 6 p.m. on Just A Game with Jason Gregor on Team 1260.

A sports writer since 1983, including stints at The Edmonton Journal and The Sun 1989-2007, I happily co-host the Jason Gregor Show on TSN 1260 twice a week and write when so inclined. Have the best damn lawn on the internet. Most important, I am Sam's dad. Follow me on Twitter at Robin_Brownlee. Or don't.

@ patty:
You sure its 35 ? I thought the cut off was 36 but i could also be wrong. Would be surprised if Tambi gave 4 years to a 35 year old if he knew there was no way to get that off the books as boulin got older.

Kudos to Montreal and Toronto for having the worst day today, with a nod to Chicago as well. You'd think teams would figure out that blowing your load one minute might lead to immense regret the next... bad analogy.

Nod to the TSN trained Brian Burke adoring seals for not calling out the fact his team is actually worse today than yesterday and they're gearing up for a run at the first overall pick in next year's draft.

Why is Tambo and K Lowe meeting up with him to kiss his ass ? If he agrees Oilers need to drop the deal involving Cogs and add Horcoff and go after Havlet
Getting rid of Penners contract ios worth almost any trade.

That is my point if you actually bothered to read. If a team has cap space they will take Penner. It isn't really the case for Ottawa though. They only have about 4 million or so to work with I think, and they need to make some changes clearly.

LOIL wrote:

Because the Oilers im sure said they wouldnt give up Cogs without getting Penner off the books

You actually think Cogliano is good enough that the Sens would take a contract as bad as you say Penner's is to get him? Ridiculous.

LOIL wrote:

And the reason sens are willing to take on the penner contract is because they are handcuffed by heatley’s trade demand. Better a bad contract plus cogs and smid than being stuck with a player that refuses to play for your team.

That is not true. If he won't play they can suspend him and get the cap space to use on someone else. Remember Neidermeyer? He plays or he gets no money and they can use the space. Wouldn't you rather do that than take on an unmovable contract?

Look, either Penner's contract is unmovable or not. Clearly it is movable because someone has agreed to take it. You still seem incapable of comprehending the point of my original statement, and until you can do so this is going to go in circles.

I think there is another advantage to front-loading a contract for an older player: it makes trading him more palatable to teams that are trying to meet the cap minimum. For example, if Khabibulin's cap hit was $3.75M for the last two years of his deal but he was only being paid $1M in salary, wouldn't he be much more attractive to a team like Phoenix? They would only have to actually pay him $1M, with the additional $2.75M of the cap space having already been paid in the first two years.

This would be the case if his salary had been structured like this:

$6.5M 09/10
$6.5M 10/11
$1M 11/12
$1M 12/13

As Jason Gregor has confirmed, this isn't the case; his salary is flat at $3.75M/season, which is a bit of a shame. Can somebody please correct my line of reasoning if I'm wrong?

As for his cap hit remaining if he retired, I think you're right (patty), but wouldn't mind confirmation if anybody else knows for sure.

Nod to the TSN trained Brian Burke adoring seals for not calling out the fact his team is actually worse today than yesterday and they’re gearing up for a run at the first overall pick in next year’s draft.

You sure its 35 ? I thought the cut off was 36 but i could also be wrong. Would be surprised if Tambi gave 4 years to a 35 year old if he knew there was no way to get that off the books as boulin got older.
LOIL

Players signed after their 35th birthday will have their contract count against the cap even if they retire, unless they are on long term injured reserve.

Part of the risk with Khabibulin is the length of the deal. If he retires the OIlers don't have to pay him but his $3.75 million counts against the cap.

IF they decided to buy him out at some point, it would cost them 2/3 of the remaining years. If it is one year, then they would be on the hook for $2.5 million. If he was bought out with one year left then they could spread the $2.5 over two years, thus it would be a $1.25 million cap hit for two years. If they bought out the final two years, they could spread out the cap hit over four years.

50.5(d)(i)(B)(5) states the following:
All Player Salary and Bonuses earned in a League Year by a Player who is in the second or later year of a multi-year SPC which was signed when the Player was age 35 or older (as of June 30 of the League Year in which the SPC is to be effective), but which Player is not on the Club's Active Roster, Injured Reserve, Injured Non Roster or Non Roster, and regardless of whether, or where, the Player is playing, except to the extent the Player is playing under his SPC in the minor leagues, in which case only the Player Salary and Bonuses in excess of $100,000 shall count towards the calculation of Averaged Club Salary;

@ Andrew W:
You make a great point about making the minimum, I totally forgot about that. I am almost entirely sure that his cap hit stays if he retires (due to signing at an 'old' age), but some confirmation by someone who's not an armchair chump (like me) would be helpful.

@ LOIL:
The rule is for players '35 or over' so it doesn't matter is he's 35 or 36.
Also, we all know that that the posts you write are written by you, no signature is necessary.

@ RossCreek:
I'm not convinced Komisarek is an upgrade over Kubina; he's more physical sure, but lacks any offensive skill. The Leafs are going to have a terribly hard time moving the puck from the backend, especially when you consider a likely Kaberle trade. Remeber the 06-07 Oilers? Smith, Staios, Bergeron, Tarnquist, Greene... ugly to watch. The Leafs are going to be mighty similar.

@ kingsblade:
You probably know more than I do when it comes to things like contracts, but when a player is traded, are you not taking on his existing contract which in this case, has a NMC written in to it? Just my 2 cent Cdn. if that's worth anything lol.

@ kingsblade:
You probably know more than I do when it comes to things like contracts, but when a player is traded, are you not taking on his existing contract which in this case, has a NMC written in to it? Just my 2 cent Cdn. if that’s worth anything lol.

Read 11.8(a) of the CBA.

Here is the pertinent sentence:

An acquiring Club may agree to continue to be bound by the no-Trade or no-move clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to the Player, Central Registry and the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof.

Read 11.8(a) of the CBA.
Here is the pertinent sentence:
An acquiring Club may agree to continue to be bound by the no-Trade or no-move clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to the Player, Central Registry and the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof.

Excellent answer. Thanks alot. Man you guys are good on this site. Iam a pretty smart hockey guy, but when it comes to the CBA, I clearly need to do more research. Thanks again.

@ idrinkPilsner:
I think the team has the option to keep it or not. I’m pretty sure it worked that way for Vis. The oilers kept it for him, but I think they didn’t have to.

That "team has the choice to keep it" part is only if they trade for a player that has a NMC that is already in writing but not yet kicked in yet. I think this was the Visnovsky situation. He had a not trade clause kicking in merely days when LA traded him to Edmonton. So in that case the Oilers had the option to remove the NMC from the contract.

Had Visnovsky's NMC already been in effect when the oilers acquired him then he obviously would have had to waive the clause before LA could have traded him. Then, as far as i understand, since he waived the NMC then it is now gone from the contract. He doesnt get a new NMC with the new club automatically.

idrinkPilsner wrote:
I clearly need to do more research
I’m not sure that’s wise, since it often comes down to a choice between research and drinking Pilsner.

@ Kingsblade and Pilsner

You left out a VERY important sentance that is before the one you posted....

If the Player is Traded or claimed on Waivers prior
to the no-Trade or no-move clause taking effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring
Club. An acquiring Club may agree to continue to be bound by the no-Trade or no-move
clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to the Player

So this only applies when a player that has a NMC in his contract is traded BEFORE that no movement clause actually kicks in.

there was some discussion earlier in regards to this.
the theory is, once the NTC or NMC in a contract is waived, it is no longer part of the contract
this is one gregor should ask rick olckyk(sp??)

I think you guys are referring to the Visnovsky deal. And the Oilers did honour it, but he was dealt days (June 29th) before the actual deal started (July 1st), so I wonder if maybe that was why they didn't have to honour it. That would seem the only reasonable explanation.

Since Heatley's contract is in tact now it seems that the Oilers have to honour all parts of the deal, including his no trade clause. But it is a good question.

kingsblade wrote:
idrinkPilsner wrote:
I clearly need to do more research
I’m not sure that’s wise, since it often comes down to a choice between research and drinking Pilsner.
@ Kingsblade and Pilsner
You left out a VERY important sentance that is before the one you posted….
If the Player is Traded or claimed on Waivers prior
to the no-Trade or no-move clause taking effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring
Club. An acquiring Club may agree to continue to be bound by the no-Trade or no-move
clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to the Player
So this only applies when a player that has a NMC in his contract is traded BEFORE that no movement clause actually kicks in.
I think this was the Visnovsky situation.

In that case you should quote the entire section because it is full of disjointed sentences. The two sentences are not related. They are addressing different points concerning NMCs. If the two sentences were meant to relate to one another they would be written differently.

Please read the whole section so you can see the context, or lack thereof.

I think you guys are referring to the Visnovsky deal. And the Oilers did honour it, but he was dealt days (June 29th) before the actual deal started (July 1st), so I wonder if maybe that was why they didn’t have to honour it. That would seem the only reasonable explanation.
Since Heatley’s contract is in tact now it seems that the Oilers have to honour all parts of the deal, including his no trade clause. But it is a good question.

I wont post the quote again to save space but yes, Section 11.8 of the CBA clearly says that if a player is traded before his no trade clause kicks in then the new team has the choice to honour the no trade or not to. If interested in the actual quote from the CBA just look at my last post.